This archaeological story sounds familiar:
"Hundreds of human remains from one burial site hint at a prolonged conflict between Stone Age people, long before the formation of powerful states"
Earliest known war in Europe was a Stone Age conflict 5000 years ago
https://archive.ph/t2xim 

---

And of course, there's a possible explanation that the Neanderthals were eliminated because the Cro-Magnons were more bloody-minded - literally!

---

This is very interesting and I'd like to read more about the research. The fact that 77% showed no sign of injury and the possibility that injuries might have been caused by other causes (hunting?), that the burial was managed (weapons going to the grave with their owners) raises some questions. If the deceased were victims of a sustained conflict then does that imply that the grave was repeatedly reopened and re-used?

In his book Human Kind, Rutger Bregman cites evidence that upscaled conflict was rare until civilisation developed to the point of ownership, of property and possessions. Once people started marking out land exclusively for themselves it led to conflict. Can't recall at what point in History this was thought to be. But this latest find puts all that into question. Fascinating.

---

The word I see is 'hint'.

I don't think bloody conflict is a normal human trait. Squabbling, getting angry might well be, hunger will cause problems too. But, (like adding metal spikes to cockerels ligs) arming humans (and, yes, dividing us up according to property - exclusification) will cause more trouble and more anger and off violence spirals...